DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-4 and 18-20, in the reply filed on July 13, 2026, is acknowledged. Claims 5-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected Groups, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 18 are objected to because they present a plurality of elements without the required separation by line indentation. 37 C.F.R. 1.75(i); see also M.P.E.P. § 608.01(m). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “…heating the part of region of the separator,” omitting the article for “region.” The Office believes the claim should read “…heating the part of the region of the separator.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. § 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) & (a)(2) as being anticipated by Nageswaran et al. (US 2020/0280039 A1), hereinafter “Nageswaran.”
Regarding claim 1, Nageswaran discloses an electrode assembly comprising:
a cathode plate (¶ [0097], Fig. 1A, ref. no. 120);
an anode plate (¶ [0097], Fig. 1A, ref. no. 116);
a separator configured to separate the cathode plate from the anode plate (¶ [0096], Figs. 1A-1C, ref. no. 104); and
a closed-pore portion provided in part of the region of the separator that is configured to block at least at least some ions de-intercalated from the cathode plate located on one side of the closed-pore portion from being intercalated into the anode plate located on the other side of the closed-pore portion, in this case the first barrier layer blocks ionic flow in the corresponding regions (¶ [0107], Fig. 1C, ref. no. 108C).
Regarding claim 2, Nageswaran further discloses that the closed-pore portion is formed by heating the part of the region of the separator, in this case the barrier layer is formed by melting (¶ [0107]).
Furthermore, the limitation “wherein the closed-pore portion is formed by heating the part of region of the separator” is a product-by-process limitation. Applicant is reminded that “‘even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.’ In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted).” M.P.E.P. § 2113 I. Here, Nageswaran anticipates the claim becuse4 it discloses all the positively recited structural limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 3, 4, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Nageswaran as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Choi et al. (US 2020/0388808 A1), hereinafter “Choi.”
Regarding claim 3, Nageswaran does not disclose that the cathode plate, separator, and anode plate are wound. However, Choi teaches a wound electrode assembly (¶ [0155], Fig. 1, ref. nos. 112-114), which results in any region of the electrode assembly being “bent.” Such a configuration would result in the closed-pore portion being in a bent region. Furthermore, changes in shape or configuration are a matter of design choice for one having ordinary skill in the art absent persuasive evidence that the claimed shape or configuration is significant. See M.P.E.P. § 2144.04 IV. B. Here, wound electrode assemblies are pervasive in the battery art. One having ordinary skill in the art would have known that selecting such a wound configuration would have yielded the predictable result of a functioning battery. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have selected a wound electrode configuration as an obvious matter of design choice.
Regarding claim 4, Nageswaran discloses two closed-pore portions (see Fig. 1C, ref. no. 108C), but does not disclose the bent parts. However, Choi teaches the bent parts as set forth in the rejection of claim 3, above. Specifically, the electrode assembly is wound which results in any selected region being “bent.” Such an arbitrary selection would result in closed-portions being at first and second bent portions of the cathode plate. Again, changes in shape or configuration are a matter of design choice for one having ordinary skill in the art absent persuasive evidence that the claimed shape or configuration is significant. See M.P.E.P. § 2144.04 IV. B. Here, wound electrode assemblies are pervasive in the battery art. One having ordinary skill in the art would have known that selecting such a wound configuration would have yielded the predictable result of a functioning battery. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have selected a wound electrode configuration as an obvious matter of design choice.
Regarding claim 18, Nageswaran further discloses:
a battery cell, in this case the electrochemical device (¶ [0096], Fig. 1A, ref. no. 100); and
an electrode assembly according to claim 1 as set forth in the rejection of claim 1, above.
Nageswaran does not disclose the shell and cover plate. However, Choi teaches a battery cell comprising:
a shell, in this case the battery case (¶ [0155], Fig. 1, ref. no. 120);
a cover plate, in this case the sealing member (¶ [0155], Fig. 1, ref. no. 140); and
an electrode assembly, in this case the wound negative electrode, separator, and positive electrode (¶ [0155], Fig. 1, ref. nos. 112-114);
wherein:
the shell has an accommodating cavity in which the electrode assembly is accommodated (see Fig. 1, ref. nos. 112-114 & 120) and an opening, in this case the space occupied by the sealing member (see Fig. 1, ref. nos. 120 & 140); and
the cover plate is configured to seal the opening of the shell, in this case the sealing member seals the battery case (¶ [0155], Fig. 1, ref. nos. 120 & 140).
One having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that arranging the electrode assembly within these well-known components would have yielded the predictable result of a functioning battery. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have accommodated the electrode assembly within a shell sealed by a cover plate in order to have yielded the predictable result of a functioning battery.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Nageswaran and Choi as applied to claim 18, above, and further in view of Shin et al. (US 2024/0030559 A1), hereinafter “Shin.”
Regarding claim 19, Nageswaran and Choi do not disclose or teach the case. However, Shin teaches a case the upper case and lower case (¶ [0046], Fig. 2, ref. nos. 130 & 140), that accommodates a plurality of battery cells within, in this case the battery modules (¶ [0046], Figs. 2 & 8, ref. no. 110). One having ordinary skill in the art would have understood that providing such a typical and well-known battery configuration would have yielded the predictable result of providing sufficient electrical power to a selected load. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have provided a case for accommodating the battery in order to have provided sufficient electrical power to a selected load.
Regarding claim 20, Nageswaran further discloses a power consuming apparatus, in this case “mobile computing devices from smartwatches, to cell phones, to tablet and laptop computers, to tools, such as cordless hand-tools to lawn mowers, and to an ever-growing list of vehicles, including cars, trucks, and aerial drones” (¶ [0003]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT J CHMIELECKI whose telephone number is (571)272-7641. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am to 5 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ula Ruddock can be reached at (571) 272-1481. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SCOTT J. CHMIELECKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights